Monday, July 12, 2010

Bolt Won't Return to High-Tax UK Until 2012

UK Telegraph -- "Organizers of next month's Aviva London Grand Prix at Crystal Palace had hoped to stage the first 100 meters head-to-head of the season between Bolt, Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell but the triple Olympic champion is set to shun the meeting because it would expose him to a huge tax bill. Unless the tax rules are relaxed, athletics administrators fear British fans will be denied the chance to see the sport's biggest star in action again until he returns to the capital in two years' time to defend his Olympic titles.

Since April, foreign sports stars competing in Britain are liable for a top rate of income tax of 50 percent but, controversially, the tax is charged not just on the money they earn in Britain but on a proportion of their worldwide sponsorship income."

MP: See previous CD posts on how high taxes drive highly-paid professional athletes away here, here, and here, illustrating the basic economic principle that "if you tax something, you get less of it."

Bolt would literally have to pay millions of pounds were he to attend the race. That's net. It would actually cost him money to attend. His effective tax rate would be well in excess of 100%, because they propose to tax him on endorsement income that he'll get even if he doesn't run this race.

Its the ideal person to tax, they can't vote so why not tax them if you can? Note that this is just like taxing rental cars to pay for stadiums, most folks who rent cars are not from the town in question. Britian has a bigger deficit problem than the US and needs revenue from someone, so taxing non voters is the first step. (With TV the only real looser is the promoter, the race could be staged anywhere and televised)

"Brit troops are taking lead and bombs from Islamics lunatics, but Bolt prefers his silken and perfumed hide not to be taxed too highly."

Benji voted for the socialist community organizer who spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's church, and hung out with terrorists like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. So I guess I find it odd Benji becomes the super patriot when somebody doesn't want to get fleeced by the government.

Benji, I'm trying to find some way of calling you an idiot that hasn't already been used by someone else on this thread, and I can't think of anything. So, please just reread the existing comments, and pretend they're from me also.

"I wish the Dems would show some guts and wipe out all rural welfare programs, including the enormous and largely hidden programs for rural infrastructure, and our enormous coprolitic military sector.

The Dems are wimps, so they won't."

Uh, Benji, Obama is pushing a massive rural broadband initiative as part of his idiotic economic planning. He's up to his neck in ethanol and other Big Ag payoffs. I don't think "guts" are the problem here. I keep point this out, but you refuse to be deterred by the facts, and just re-post the same one-note blather in post after post.

The situation is a bit different than 1775 in this case. If an american at that had gone to britian and had enough wealth he could have voted (recall that you had to have enough money to vote) What the UK does is to say if you want to come to our country you get to pay. Seems a quite reasonable thing to do. Doesn't cost anyone living there a bit. If they don't come no skin off any residents back.

You gotta admire the patriotism of Bolt. Right up there with Benedict Arnold, or Quisling.

Bolt is Jamaican and as a free individual he should be able to run and earn money in whichever country he wants. If he prefers to keep more of the money that he earns instead of giving it to the British government that is his choice. And the last time I looked, there was nothing patriotic about giving a greedy government more money.

Brit troops are taking lead and bombs from Islamics lunatics, but Bolt prefers his silken and perfumed hide not to be taxed too highly.

Why should Bolt want to endanger British troops by giving the UK government money to fight a stupid war that creates more enemies and makes the world more dangerous?

I know a quick way to end US involvement in foreign wars: A fair draft and a progressive consumption tax to finance mobilizations.

I know a better way; some courage on the part of voters to elect politicians that will not send troops abroad for political reasons that have little to do with national defense. But that courage does not exist. The right abandoned its principles of non-intervention and the left caved in and abandoned its peace platform.

Go cover Bolt with glory, and make him a martyr. This is what the US right-wing has come to.

You are confused. Bolt is a guy who is in the entertainment business and who has chosen to keep as much of his earnings as he can in his short career. Helping the UK to fund an idiotic war that is being pushed by the anti-liberty interests on the left and the right would not make him noble or a hero, no matter how you try to spin your incoherent narrative.

Of course, you can't possibly have meant what you wrote above so it makes sense for you to rephrase your illogical arguments.

My preference is for Ron Paul. He was right when he pointed out that the reasons given for the Iraq invasion were based on lies and that an Afghan occupation was a very bad idea. Both the right and the left were too cowardly to look at the facts and voters chose to elect Obama, who was pushing the 'good war' even more than that idiot John McCain. Cowardly voters are now paying for their sins. Sadly many young men and women have been crippled and killed because of that cowardice.

You mean a link showing that Paul opposed the Iraq invasion, the transfer of power to the President to wage war on the basis of the evidence as he sees it? Try youtube. There are hundreds of clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EywYDhPeY8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

I mean I don't know about you but I'm loath to take a Mr. Hypocrite on earmark's word on anything...

There is no hypocrisy. He votes against all spending bills but once they are passed he argues that it is Congress, not the President who should determine where the spending goes. All spending should be earmarked so that we can see where the money goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn5h23TYsZI

It is now evident that Republicans are no longer the party of Robert Taft and that they have moved to accept FDR's statist ideology. In many ways they are the ideological equivalent of Democrats. On the issue of the war, both the left and the right have credibility problems because both were too cowardly to stand up to the lies that created the Iraqi adventure in the first place.